Summary

The main point is that belief in the Creator, Most High, should not be made dependent on the Big Bang theory. The truth of faith does not stand or fall with one scientific model, especially when that model is not directly observed by the senses, but is built through interpretation, inference, and mathematical description. The Big Bang theory may contain true elements, but it also carries scientific and philosophical problems. For this reason, it should not be treated as the foundation for proving the existence of Allah.

The First Problem: Its Establishment and Meaning Are Not Certain

The Big Bang theory is widely accepted in academic circles, but acceptance alone does not make it certain. Scientific models have changed before, and what was once accepted was later replaced. The Big Bang theory also does not fall directly under experiment and sense perception. No one directly observed the beginning of the universe. Rather, cosmologists interpret present signs and build a model from them.

So the theory is not pure observed science. It includes philosophical assumptions and explanations of what the observed data may mean. Because of this, it cannot be used as though it is a final and certain proof.

The Second Problem: Creation from Nothing

Many people think the Big Bang clearly proves creation from nothing, but this is not agreed upon. Some use it to support creation from nothing, while others argue that the theory does not prove that at all. It may only describe the expansion of the universe from an earlier state, not absolute creation from nothing.

The deeper problem is when believers make the need for a Creator depend only on creation from nothing. If the universe was created from matter, that still does not remove its need for a Creator. The human being, plants, animals, the sun, the moon, and all visible occurrences come from earlier matter, yet they still need a maker, planner, and originator.

Creation from matter does not remove neediness. A computer is made from prior material, but it still needs an intelligent maker. A program may be written through code, but knowing the code does not remove the need for a programmer. Likewise, knowing the process by which something forms does not remove the need for a Creator.

The Third Problem: The Origination of Time

Another serious problem is the claim that time itself began with the Big Bang. This is not just a scientific claim. It is a philosophical claim with major consequences.

If time began with the universe, then there would be no “before” the universe in any real sense. This is why Stephen Hawking said that times before the Big Bang are undefined, and that the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This makes the universe, in a certain sense, the first thing, with nothing before it.

This clashes with many Islamic beliefs and with the apparent meanings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. It also creates rational problems. If every originated thing needs an originated cause, then saying that the universe began without any prior time makes causality difficult to explain. It leads to the claim that the universe began without an originated cause, which is the problem found in the way of the kalam philosophers.

The Fourth Problem: Treating Place and Spacetime as Existing Things

The theory also speaks about spacetime as though time and place form a real four dimensional fabric existing outside the mind. The problem is that this can turn a mathematical description into a real external thing. This is known as treating a concept as though it is a extramental object.

In creed, this confuses what exists in the mind with what exists in external reality. Mathematics may describe motion, distance, and relation, but that does not mean every mathematical description is a real thing existing outside the mind.

This becomes dangerous in matters of belief, because if place is treated as an existent created thing that surrounds all things, then affirming Allah’s highness becomes wrongly understood. It may lead to the claim that Allah cannot be above creation because place itself is created and external. This is one of the corrupt consequences of turning abstract descriptions into real existents.

The Fifth Problem: Multiple Universes

Another problem is that some versions and extensions of the Big Bang model open the door to multiverse theories, such as an oscillating universe or eternal inflation. Some people may then think that if many universes exist, or if universes keep emerging, this removes the need for a Creator.

But this is false. Multiplying universes does not remove neediness. Whether there is one universe or many, whether the universe begins from nothing or from prior matter, everything possible and dependent still needs a Creator. More created things do not remove the need for the Creator. They increase the signs of need, order, and dependence.

Words of Aḥmad ʿIṣām al Najjār

Problems with the Big Bang Theory

The intended meaning here is that the soundness of belief in the Creator, Most High, is not dependent on the issue of the universe being originated. The issue of the universe being originated is also not dependent on the Big Bang theory. This is because the Big Bang theory is not directly subject to experiment and sense perception, and it has some scientific problems, even though it is the theory accepted in academic circles at the present time. But that is not a proof, as is known, because before it there were other theories that were accepted scientifically, and they were completely different from what is currently accepted.

If the word universe refers to this visible heaven, then to affirm that it is originated, it is enough to have transmitted evidence to which reason was directed and whose soundness reason established. Reason has established the truth of the Noble Qur’an, and that it is impossible for it to be invented by a human being. Reason also permits the origination of the universe. So, if its origination is established by sound transmitted proof, then this is enough for knowledge of its origination to be gained.

As for the theory which says that the universe, at its beginning, was a singularity, then began expanding through an explosion 13.8 billion years ago, it is not a firmly established and certain theory as is commonly spread. Rather, there are a number of scientific and experimental problems with it. (Ekeberg, B. 2019. Cosmology has some big problems, Scientific American Blog Network. Available at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/ Accessed: 23 July 2023.)

From the philosophical side, this model also has some remarks and problems. Likewise, the use of this model by believers and Muslims has a number of problems from the side of what follows from it. From this and that are the following matters.

The First Problem: Its Proof and Meaning Are Probable

This problem is clear to anyone who has knowledge of cosmology, experimental natural sciences, and the philosophy of science. The theory has a number of well known problems. Likewise, it is a philosophical theory more than it is an experimental scientific theory, just as Darwinian evolution is philosophical more than it is experimental and scientific. Nothing claimed by cosmologists falls directly under experiment and sense perception. Rather, they are explanations of what follows from what we observe. They are not themselves what we observe.

The Second Problem: Creation from Nothing

The Big Bang theory may not support the notion of creation from nothing as much as most people may think. Although the matter is disputed, this is not the case for many atheists. This is unlike William Lane Craig, who held that the Big Bang theory greatly supports the doctrine of creation from nothing, ex nihilo, while others disagreed with him. (Morriston, W. 2002. “Creation ex nihilo and the big bang”, Philo, 5, 1, pp. 23–33. doi: 10.5840/philo2002512.)

The problem here is not whether the doctrine of creation from nothing is established or negated. Rather, the problem is that the theory and its defenders make reasoning for the Creator, Most High, depend on the doctrine of creation from nothing. So, if creation from nothing is established, the need for a Creator is established. If it is not established, the need for a Creator is not established. This belief is completely incorrect. Here lies a dangerous necessary consequence of fully adopting the Big Bang theory.

So what if it were established that this explosion was an explosion of a particular matter? Would the universe, because of that, not need a Creator according to the eternalist atheists? The answer is yes, because their Muslim and Christian opponents restricted the doctrine of neediness for a Creator of the universe with the condition of creation from nothing, which the theory may not even be concerned with proving in the first place.

But what is said about visible occurrences within the universe is the same as what is said about the origination of the universe. Whoever does not affirm a Creator for visible occurrences, whether from nothing or from matter, would not affirm a Creator for the origination of the universe as long as creation from nothing is not established for him.

William Lane Craig presented the cosmological argument in two premises and one conclusion.

The first premise: everything that has a beginning to its existence has a cause for its existence.

The second premise: the universe has a beginning to its existence.

The conclusion: the universe has a cause for its existence. (Craig, W. L. 1979. “Proposed formulation of the argument”, The Kalām Cosmological Argument, pp. 63–64. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-04154-1_6.)

But the first premise contains another premise that is not mentioned. It is that everything which has a beginning to its existence is that which came into existence from nothing, without being preceded by a locus or matter. According to the defenders of that argument, this does not apply to visible occurrences in the universe, such as the creation of the human being, plants, and other things, because they are created from matter that precedes them. So those visible occurrences would have no doer. This is incorrect. Rather, what is said about the origination of the universe is said about the origination of other visible occurrences in the heavens and the earth.

The truth is that creation, whether from nothing or from matter, whether it is this universe or what is inside the universe, is in need of a knowing and willing Creator. For this reason, most of the philosophers who held that the universe is eternal, meaning the eternity of these visible heavenly bodies, did not deny the need of the universe and the occurrences within it for an originator.

Then who said that if the universe were not originated, it would not be in need of a maker?

The philosophers differed concerning the reason why the possible thing needs a cause. Is it possibility or origination? Many philosophers held that the reason is possibility, not origination.

Al Tabataba’i says: “The need of the possible thing for a cause is from the primary necessities, in which merely conceiving its subject and predicate is enough to affirm it. For whoever conceives the possible quiddity, equal in relation to existence and non existence, and conceives that its leaving the state of equality toward one of the two sides depends on another matter that brings it out of that state toward it, will not delay in affirming it.

“Is the reason why the possible thing needs a cause possibility, or origination? The truth is the first, and this is what the sages held.

“They proved this by saying that a quiddity, when considered in relation to its existence, is necessary in existence, and when considered in relation to its non existence, is necessary in non existence. These two necessities are both with the predicate as a condition. Origination is nothing but one of the two necessities following the other, because it is the existence of a thing after its non existence. It is known that necessity is the basis of being free of a cause and the removal of need. So as long as the quiddity is not considered with its possibility, necessity is not removed, and need for the cause is not obtained.” (Bidayat al Hikmah, p. 66, Muhammad Husayn al Tabataba’i, Muʾassasat al Maʿarif al Islamiyyah.)

Although the truth is that the possible thing is necessarily originated, there is nothing in the statement that the universe and matter are eternal which indicates the negation of the maker. For this reason, many philosophers who held that the universe and matter are eternal did not deny the universe’s need for a maker.

The Third Problem: The Origination of Time

This problem is among the matters which show that the Big Bang theory is a philosophical theory more than it is an experimental scientific theory. This is their statement that time originated with this explosion. Many corrupt beliefs follow from this. Christian philosophers tried to solve those problems without success. (Copan, P. and Craig, W. L. 2018. “Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalam Cosmological Argument”.)

Click Here To See The Paper

The possible quiddity, equal in relation to existence and non existence, and the conception that its leaving the state of equality toward one of the two sides depends on another matter that brings it out of that state toward it, will not delay in affirming it.

Is the reason why the possible thing needs a cause possibility, or origination? The truth is the first, and this is what the sages held.

They proved this by saying that a quiddity, when considered in relation to its existence, is necessary in existence, and when considered in relation to its non existence, is necessary in non existence. These two necessities are both with the predicate as a condition. Origination is nothing but one of the two necessities following the other, because it is the existence of a thing after its non existence. It is known that necessity is the basis of being free of a cause and the removal of need. So as long as the quiddity is not considered with its possibility, necessity is not removed, and need for the cause is not obtained. (Bidayat al Hikmah, p. 66, Muhammad Husayn al Tabataba’i, Muʾassasat al Maʿarif al Islamiyyah.)

Although the truth is that the possible thing is necessarily originated, there is nothing in the statement that the universe and matter are eternal which indicates the negation of the maker. For this reason, many philosophers who held that the universe and matter are eternal did not deny the universe’s need for a maker.

The Third Problem: The Origination of Time

This problem is among the matters which show that the Big Bang theory is a philosophical theory more than it is an experimental scientific theory. This is their statement that time originated with this explosion. Many corrupt beliefs follow from this. Christian philosophers tried to solve those problems without success. (Copan, P. and Craig, W. L. 2018. “Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalam Cosmological Argument”.)

From here, Stephen Hawking said, in meaning, that even if the universe has a beginning, it is, in meaning, eternal, with nothing before it, because time before the universe is undefined.

Hawking says: “One may say that time had a beginning at the Big Bang, in the sense that earlier times simply cannot be defined.” (A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, p. 33, Stephen Hawking, translated by Dr Mustafa Ibrahim Fahmi.)

Then, while commenting on the book Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (d. 1218AH), Hawking (d. 1439AH) says: “In fact, his two cases, both the thesis and the antithesis, are really the same argument. Both are based on the unspoken assumption that time continues backward forever, whether the universe has always existed or not. As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe.” (A Brief History of Time, p. 32.)

His saying, “In fact, his two cases, both the thesis and the antithesis, are really the same argument,” means Kant’s statement: if the universe had no beginning, then there would be time without beginning. And if the universe is originated after non existence, then why did it occur at a specific time rather than another? In both cases, Kant assumes the existence of time without beginning, whether in the universe or before it. Hawking means that in both cases, time has no meaning outside the universe. By this, he confines eternity to this universe, whether it has a beginning or not.

So, according to him, the universe is the first, before which there is nothing. This is a natural consistency of the notion that the genus of time originated with the universe.

The statement that time originated with the Big Bang opposes many Islamic beliefs, and opposes the apparent meanings of the transmitted texts from the Noble Qur’an and the purified Prophetic Sunnah. This is proof of the corruption of this statement. As for the philosophical and rational side, the statement that time originated with this visible universe is also a corrupt statement. I clarified that in the book The Theory of Time and Place according to Ibn Taymiyyah.

If causality must have time, since an originated thing only occurs in time, then the universe would not be originated, even if it had a beginning. Although this statement is clearly contradictory, the contemporary eternalist atheist, who is shallow in knowledge, may reach the same conclusion reached by others whom he venerates among cosmologists, such as Hawking. By this, one of the problems in the Big Bang theory becomes clear.

Likewise, the origination of time with the universe means the impossibility of occurrences with no beginning. This means that the universe is originated without an originated cause, as is the reality of the statement of the kalam philosophers. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) clarified the corruption of this madhhab, as will come. Clear reason knows that it is not possible for an originated occurrence to occur without an originated cause. This will be covered in detail, Allah willing.

Likewise, affirming the existence of time in external reality as an existent fourth dimension is the affirmation of an abstract matter externally, while it has no reality. This has corrupt necessary consequences.

The intended meaning here is that this statement leads to problems in many topics of belief, such as the topics of the names and attributes. It is a statement that is not correct, neither by transmitted proof nor by reason.

The Fourth Problem: Existent Place

That is because the defenders of this theory speak of the emergence of spacetime, which is made up of originated time and originated place. They describe it with descriptions that are not philosophically correct, because they fell into the reification fallacy. Or, in the terminology of creed, they confuse what exists in the mind with what exists in external reality. This is one of the roots of the misguidance of those who oppose the sound method.

Just as they went astray in the issue of time, they went astray in the issue of place. They said that time and place are united in a four dimensional network. Then they dealt with that network as though it were a physical thing existing externally. Yet, in reality, it is something that exists in the mind and has no reality externally. I have explained this in detail elsewhere.

The intended meaning here is that this statement of existent place leads to matters that contradict many Islamic beliefs, such as affirming Allah’s highness. According to it, Allah, Most High, would not be in a place or direction, neither above nor anything else, because place, according to the theoreticians of this theory, is an existent matter externally. Based on that, it would not be correct for Allah, Most High, to be in a place, because that would mean that created things encompass Him, Most High.

Likewise, affirming existent place, or affirming this spacetime network, is affirming a mental concept externally. This represents a return to Greek idealist philosophy, which says that forms and abstract things exist externally, whether independently from particular things, as is the madhhab of Plato, and the madhhab of the Pythagoreans concerning the existence of abstract numbers externally, or together with particular things externally, as is the madhhab of Aristotle and those who followed him among the kalam philosophers and philosophers.

This philosophy leads to imaginary matters that contradict clear reason and sound transmitted proof. It affirms externally what cannot be known through any sense in itself, and this opposes the truth of the matter itself.

Here, there must be separation and distinction between mathematics in itself and the philosophical, metaphysical explanations given to it by natural scientists. The truth of this does not necessarily mean the truth of that.

For this reason, Michio Kaku says in his book Einstein’s Cosmos, mentioning the story of the emergence of the notion of the fabric of spacetime: “After Einstein’s work received the blessing of Max Planck, it slowly began to draw the attention of other physicists. Among them was one of Einstein’s former teachers at the Polytechnic Institute, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski.

The mathematics professor became interested in the work of his former student. Rather, he developed the equations of the theory of relativity, trying to recast what Einstein had said, that time and place can each transform into the other with increased speed.

Minkowski expressed this in mathematical language and concluded that time and place together form a four dimensional unity. One of the results of this conclusion was that everyone began speaking about the fourth dimension. He recast Einstein’s equations to reveal that beautiful four dimensional structure which makes time and place one fabric. He wrote saying: it is now time for us to look at time and place as one unity, not as two separate entities.

“At first, Einstein was not convinced by this speech. Rather, he wrote mockingly of it: the important thing is the content, not the mathematical equations. With mathematics, a person can prove anything he wants.” (Einstein’s Cosmos, p. 55, Michio Kaku, translated by Shihab Yasin, Hindawi Foundation, 2011CE, with slight editing, it is actually in page 48**)

The Fifth Problem: Multiple Universes

Speech has already passed in general concerning the corruption of multiverse theories. But this is a problem raised against the Big Bang theory from the side that full submission to the theory, with the metaphysical dimensions it includes, may lead to permitting multiverse hypotheses built upon the Big Bang model and extending from it, such as the hypothesis of the oscillating universe or eternal inflation. A person who has no knowledge of the rational sciences may think that assuming the establishment of this or that negates the universe’s need for a Creator.

These are some of the philosophical problems with the theory. As for the natural scientific problems, among them are the horizon problem, the problem of spiral galaxies, and the problem of the survival of comets. (Lisle, J. 2006. Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation. United States: No Publisher.)

The summary is that the Big Bang theory contains what is true and what is false. So nothing from it is accepted except what agrees with the Book and the Sunnah.

Masʾalat Ḥudūth al ʿĀlam Bayna Ibn Taymiyyah wa al Falāsifah wa al Ittiḥādiyyah al Muʿāṣirah by Aḥmad ʿIṣām al Najjār 1/201–210